Superior Court Judges Want Cellphone Recording Ban

24-hour notice and approval would be required for all court proceedings, they say

, Daily Report


The State's Superior Court judges want to clamp down on the use of cellphones and other small electronic devices that could be employed easily by observers to record court proceedings.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • james

    In the my first dealing with the court, they were informed by the clerk of a policy of allowing ex parte communications on or around May 19, 2011 during a conversation with Ms. Marion, who informed the Thomases that they could not represent themselves and needed an attorney. Ms. Marion inform the Thomases that the attorney usually meets with the judge first to discuss the case and then the judge would instructed her as to what to do on the matter. At this time the Thomases were trying to file their case under O.C.G.A. 9-15-2 (1), (d).
    The Thomases then informed Ms. Marion that they could not have ex parte communications with the judge and it was her duty to give the complaint to the judge, so he could see whether it had merit or not to be filed. She reinstated that she could not take anything from us, unless the judge advises her to do so. We once again asked her to follow the law code and her respond was: “things don’t work that way around here and she knows what the law says and what is require of her.” She then became highly upset with us and told us that the judge was not going to read our petition and she could tell us now, that the judge was going to deny our indigent affidavit. She then informed us to come up the next day so the judge could tell us. Ms. Marion refused to accept the petition, but kept the affidavit.
    The following day, on May 20, 2011, while sitting on a bench outside of the clerk’s office Judge Rumer walked past the Thomases into the clerk’s office. You could hear the conversation where the clerk was advising Judge Rumer that she would deny the indigent affidavit. Judge Rumer stated to her to write something up and he’ll sign it, and note that Judge Rumer never requested to look at the Thomases petition.
    Around June 24, 2011, the Thomases’ receive a notice of a hearing before Judge Rumer. During this hearing on July 22, 2011, Judge Rumer informed the Thomases’ that Judge Pullen also denied their other indigent affidavit and he did not look at their petition nor will he look at the petition. The Thomases’ also ask Judge Rumer to enter a ruling upon their motions that they mailed to him and on the hearing, Judge Rumer refused.
    On the following Monday, July 25, 2011 the Thomases’ were informed by Ms. Marion that she verbally told Judge Rumer that Judge Pullen would have, she didn’t give the complaint to Judge Pullen. Ms. Marion’s own testimony shows that she impersonate a judge and provide false testimony to a judge. Because of cost we are unable to send a copy of the DVD with Ms. Marion’s comments. The Thomases have posted it on YouTube at this address below or you can type in Cusseta, GA Clerk of the Court,( player_detailpage). Ms. Marion goes on further to state: “that the judge order told her she did not have to speak to us.” Because we were pro se, the court reporter refused to provide us with a copy of the transcript.
    What puzzle me at first, I was denied the right to file my case under OCGA 9-15-2 (1), (d), even my mailed complaint was returned to me without any reason why it was not given to a judge. But my complaint against, KIA Auto Sport, was granted under OCGA 9-15-2 (1), (d) by Judge Frank Jordan during one of his rural circuit visits. Then on March 7, 2012, Judge Jordan placed the case on his rural visit docket for March 23, 2012, and the case was originally assigned to Judge Arthur Smith. The strange part is that the Defendant KIA Auto Sport did not requested for a hearing until March 16,2012, in violation of USCR 3.1;3.2; 3.3;4.1;4.7;8.1..
    The transcript for March 23, 2012 hearing does not accurately state what was said during the hearing and the court reporter has refused to provide a copy of the recording.

  • James

    Of course, we can TRUST the courts ?????? player_detailpage
    KIA Auto Sport of Columbus, GA and SunTrust Bank stole my identity on a credit application (beautifying the application; similar to Brucker v. US Brucker vs. ). When I found out that the 3 page credit application I filled out by hand was replaced with a 2 page computer generated application. They changed me from the co applicant to the applicant, my job title and my income change, which was printed out on October 7, 2009 and placed it with the third page that contained my signature, in the co applicant section that I signed on the September 30, 2009. I wrote both companies and advise them of the fraudulent credit application and demand that they take the vehicle back and demanded they remove the bank fraud off my credit history. They laughed. So, I file suit in court, KIA Auto Sport was in default, but unbeknown to me they had already brought Judge Frank Jordan, Jr. Let me remind everyone that this judge was not assign the case. The case was assign to Judge Smith, but Judge Jordan assign the case to himself, overlooked that KIA was in default, and rule in their favor. I filed a complaint with Chief Judge John Allen, who was also the chairperson of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, requesting that my case be assign to a judge according to the law and that a judge outside of the Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit to be assigned the case. Of course, Judge Allen assigned the case to Judge Jordan, even with court documents showing that Judge Jordan conspired with the defendants to have the case placed on his docket. I have appealed to the appellate courts, the case is now pending a Writ in the Supreme Court of Georgia (S13C1560).

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202614160685

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.